Navigate:

2012 politics on docket for high court

Several upcoming cases are potential grenades that could be rolled into the 2012 race. | AP Photos
Close

“I think it’s safe to say that most court observers would surmise that the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor with Justice [Samuel] Alito has made race-based government decision making-more questionable than before,” Blum said.

The court’s currently deciding whether to take the case, and if it does, arguments aren’t likely until April. If Perry’s still in the race by then, the case has time-bomb potential — it wasn’t until he launched his White House bid that his support of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants became a problem, and the affirmative action policy that took place under his watch could follow suit.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The court could present another problem for Perry if it decides to hear a challenge to Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Perry’s record on the law is mixed — less than a week after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the broad measures last spring, Perry issued a statement saying that some of them weren’t right for Texas, but he’s since expressed support for Arizona’s efforts to uphold them in court, following Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s decision to file a brief in support of the law.

Now that Brewer has asked the Supreme Court to hear the challenge to S.B. 1070, Perry could find himself whacked on it from the right in the primary and then, if he is the GOP nominee, from the left in the general election.

President Obama also has some exposure on the issue. He called the Arizona law irresponsible last spring in an effort to get immigration reform in front of Congress but a year-and-a-half later, he hasn’t had much success achieving immigration reform himself. The court’s still deliberating over whether to hear the case, but if it does, it will serve to remind Hispanic voters of how little Obama’s done on the issue in his first term.

Meanwhile, there’s a challenge to California’s Proposition 8 gay marriage ban working its way through lower courts. If it lands in front of the nine justices, it will reintroduce a staple of the culture wars into a presidential race that at the moment appears focused on the economy.

Readers' Comments (150)

“The Supreme Court has dealt with a lot of cases about religious symbols in the government sphere and those have been quite contentious, but this case gets to a much deeper issue of the internal governance of churches and the extent to which the government can reach inside the church and change the way that it operates,” Goodrich said.

Tyrants and Dictators have been trying to worm their way inside the Churches since they were conceived. Liberals would love nothing more than to infiltrate the Churches like they did the Democratic Party and destroy it from within. This is about the redistribution of what comes in the offering plate and forcing entitlements on Churches Thats just how Libs'll do ya.

So Libs, are your intentions to take the world back to the days of offering virgins to the Rain God?

Tyrants and Dictators have been trying to worm their way inside the Churches since they were conceived. Liberals would love nothing more than to infiltrate the Churches like they did the Democratic Party and destroy it from within. This is about the redistribution of what comes in the offering plate and forcing entitlements on Churches Thats just how Libs'll do ya.

So Libs, are your intentions to take the world back to the days of offering virgins to the Rain God?

Just a few years ago, liberals and atheists were heathens and unAmerican because they believe that Church and State should remain separate as the conservative right worked overtime to impose their God on the body politic.

As for taking the world back to anything, also an amusing comment considering that it's conservatives who don't believe in evolution and instead believe in Creationism and that it was a Republican frontrunner who held a prayer rally apparently as a show of what a Perry Presidency would look like.

Tyrants and Dictators have been trying to worm their way inside the Churches since they were conceived.

I actually think this is one of the more interesting cases, the Church striking back at the State. "You want me to keep the Church out of the public sphere? Fine, you keep the public sphere out of my Church." This is going to be classic, but I bet the church loses badly!

Tyrants and Dictators have been trying to worm their way inside the Churches since they were conceived. Liberals would love nothing more than to infiltrate the Churches like they did the Democratic Party and destroy it from within. This is about the redistribution of what comes in the offering plate and forcing entitlements on Churches Thats just how Libs'll do ya.

I actually think this is one of the more interesting cases, the Church striking back at the State. "You want me to keep the Church out of the public sphere? Fine, you keep the public sphere out of my Church." This is going to be classic, but I bet the church loses badly!

Just a few years ago, liberals and atheists were heathens and unAmerican because they believe that Church and State should remain separate as the conservative right worked overtime to impose their God on the body politic.

You are heathens...period.

You use the ACLU to do your bidding here in America and NATO to fight your wars over seas. You say one thing and do the exact opposite, its been that way since Wilson himself taught you the trick.

You have progressively built up to this by getting the Ten Commandments removed from public court buildings to prayers in schools and on the battlefields of wars you voted for to vandalizing crosses out in the middle of the desert.

I'd say that pretty much places you smack in the middle of the Heathen Category.

I disagree. I don't think any entity in this country should be exempt from the laws. It will be interesting to see how close the "strict constructionist / textualists" hold to their philosophy. Remember, the actual reading of the Constution says nothing about "Separation of Church and State". But, as always, they'll justify the decision they prefer. Maybe this time they will respect stare decisis (did I spell that right?).

You say one thing and do the exact opposite, its been that way since Wilson himself taught you the trick.

Again, wth are you talking about?

soldotnastan: Oct. 8, 2011 - 7:51 AM EST

by getting the Ten Commandments removed from public court buildings

I'd say that pretty much places you smack in the middle of the Heathen Category.

Btw, you're under the impression that a group from the ACLU and a group of liberals went over to a war zone to "vandalize crosses" made in sand???? Weird.

Anyway, as I said, all you're showing is that it's the conservative right that wants to impose religion on the State, which nullifies your original post.

You might also want to read my post where I say I think the churches should win this case, that the State should stay out of their business. But over the last few decades, the problem has not been with the State imposing itself on churches but Churches trying to infiltrate the State. Besides, the ACLU is NOT the State, Einstein.

I disagree. I don't think any entity in this country should be exempt from the laws. It will be interesting to see how close the "strict constructionist / textualists" hold to their philosophy. Remember, the actual reading of the Constution says nothing about "Separation of Church and State". But, as always, they'll justify the decision they prefer. Maybe this time they will respect stare decisis (did I spell that right?).

I do'nt know enough about the specifics of the case to really make a judgment, but the left can't have it both ways, they can't want a separation of Church and State and impose social law on churches. Churches, conversely, can't want tax exempt status due to the separation of church and state and impose themselves on politics.

Theocracies are nightmares. Americans should be pushing hard to keep church and state separate.

This is why the liberal media, Politico included started fresh attacks on justice Thomas in the last few weeks....If the radical Progs can somehow taint the court they can try and blame these decisions on the politics of the justices instead of based on the rule of law.

60% of the country is patiently waiting for Obiecare to get struck down...

I actually think this is one of the more interesting cases, the Church striking back at the State. "You want me to keep the Church out of the public sphere? Fine, you keep the public sphere out of my Church." This is going to be classic, but I bet the church loses badly!

These Churches should be protected by any means necessary. When the House of Entitlement cards comes crashing down that will be probly the only place left to seek refuge. By then people will see its the Hostile Governments fault and the Government is the Answer argument will be futile.

Just like in The Great Depression churches will be the only place to go to get what we really need... Hope.

I do'nt know enough about the specifics of the case to really make a judgment, but the left can't have it both ways, they can't want a separation of Church and State and impose social law on churches. Churches, conversely, can't want tax exempt status due to the separation of church and state and impose themselves on politics.

I agree with you on one point. Neither side can have it both ways. However, my personal opinion is that the barring of the church from the public sphere is an incorrect reading of the Constritution. Like I said in my previous post, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution. So to hold true to my convictions here, I say the church should lose this case. They should have won the others.